We're not there yet, are we?

Uh, no, we're not. We've just got started, but I'm not going to bludgeon you with guilt. I'm just the guy who asks questions. The answers can vary. In fact, they can vary a lot.

You see, we all live with far too many contradictions, so many in fact that we think we don't have any at all. Let me give you a few examples. There are many Americans who deplore the fact that rapid-fire weapons are used to kill large number of people - most recently, small, innocent children - and while we all know that people pull the triggers, it makes sense to discuss whether someone has a right to own that particular type of weapon. There are quite a few folks who recognize this who immediately turn around and argue vehemently that any kind of restrictions on any kind of guns is a violation of (admittedly) controversial constitutional rights. Whether we realize it or not, the safety and security of innocent people is being weighed out against a possible right to a particular freedom. In the end, where you're most vehement is where your priority lies.

Or, there are many folks worldwide who realize and recognize that we're facing a number of serious environmental problems, most of which have to do with excessive energy consumption. Still, ideas like "clean coal", fracking, or nuclear energy are still seriously discussed and legislatively protected. Many of these folks then whisper quietly that compromise is always necessary, but it's their lack of volume that is speaking loudest. Once the environment is destroyed or a particular resource, say, water, is decimated, there won't be any compromise to be made. Turns out Mother Nature doesn't compromise.

In other words, most of us - certainly too many of us - are inconsistent in our beliefs and actions to a fault. We say one thing, then do another. We step up for one issue, but at the expense of another. We insist on the legality of something (generally when it's to our advantage), but know that the moral issue invovled is to the contrary. In fact, there is a lot of pressure on one these days to decide, on extremely short notice whether the moral, political, personal, or legal aspects dominate. There's not a whole lot one can do about that, is there?

Well, actually there is. If we look at the four "dimensions" just mentioned, we could rank them according to importance. Yes, they all play a role. Yes, they are all involved, but it is possible to rank-order them nevertheless. Political expediencies bother me a lot, so the political ramifications of my actions and decisions play the least important role. I don't consider myself the biggest egoist going and I'm willing, in those situations in which I believe it makes sense, to put others' needs before my own, so that's the next to least important aspect. I do like the idea of living in an ordered environment (or I wouldn't like it in Germany so much), so I can agree on a legal framework, to be sure, but this is not the most important dimension by any means because, as I have noted before (for example, here or here), there is such a thing a unjust or immoral laws, so the legal dimension is less important that the moral one. In the end, then, our morality will determine if and when we get there, and as there is still a bit of disagreement on this one, no, we're not there yet.